Hi all, I've been asked to score an online advert for a big games/entertainment company, its around 60 seconds of music to be used online on a non-exclusive basis. I would retain copyright and 100% of the writers royalty as well as 33% of the publishing royalty. I was wondering what a fair fee would be based on this criteria?

--------------------
http://www.williammorrismusic.com

wish i could help but i dont know the answer to that...
congrats on the job though man!

--------------------
www.soundcloud.com/skerrick

1. Nobody can take away your writers share if you're not employed by the company, so that's not a bonus

2. 33% publishing is low ( sounds like Ubisoft ) but also largely pointless for online trailers as there is no money in the back end.

3. Online trailers vary from as little as £500 up to around £2500. Licensing of AAA lost records starts at around £5000 for online only.

4. Recording budget on top.

And I love that you're " William Morris music"!! Anything that gets up their nose is good in my books!! Ha ha

Cheers Skerrick

Narcoman:

Much appreciated, I wasn't aware of point 1, good to know. I think they told me about the royalties because there is an option for broadcast which apparently gets me an additional usage fee and then I guess the royalties would be more worth it as opposed to the internet which I'm really not expecting anything from.

They mentioned that they would register the track with ASCAP in the US, I would normally register with PRS, is there any difference in outcome for myself should it ever be broadcast?

I had considered using an alias at one point as between the WMMA and William Morris the designer google is a tough place for me. I now turn up second for my name plus 'music' though, maybe one day I can overtake them or out SEO them at least

--------------------
http://www.williammorrismusic.com

So just to be clear - if you retain the copyright then the music belongs only to you including the publishing, so what you are doing is assigning to them 66.xx% of the publishing. Semantics? I won't get started on how the uninformed (I'm using a polite word) assume publishing is something they give back to you. Anyway at some point monies will be collected from the internet and publishing will be worth something. Fee is a bit tougher to nail down - how long will it take you to do the track and what is your time worth plus a touch of admin etc. Is there potential for more work from them etc. If you prefer not to go ASCAP then raise that with them as well.
Good luck and have fun.
Eric

It's not really true that no-one can take away your writer's share.. it's against PRS rules - but there are ways to do it, and a few scenarios where 'reputable' companies are doing it..

your 50% (writers share) + 33% of publishing share .. doesn't sound bad at all to me.
Maybe this is because there is a 3rd party / middle man ?

However - quite right - you can expect to see fek all from online usage.
Good that they've already said new sync fee for broadcast scenario - they are obviously playing nice.

With respect ASCAP - isn't it the case that they register THEIR SHARE only with ASCAP ?
You can go ahead and register your share with PRS if you like.. or call PRS and talk to them to see if they think it would be better if you registered with ASCAP for this.. (I think this is something to concern about in eventuality of broadcast though)

As for fee - yeh totally depends on the game and budget - 500 is around the library track mark.. so you can use that as a base rate if you like.. (ie compare your value against that) - it depends how much they want you and what your reputation can command really !! - I would want to go significantly higher than that, personally - especially as there is no guarantee what so ever of royalties.

I don't like charging daily rates - as my take on this is, people pay for genius not for time.. however if you want some perspective you can tally up a minimum of £250 - £350 per day .. estimate how many days (with revisions) it will take - and take a look at that figure as well..

and then double it

Quote blue manga:

---

and then double it

---

And expect to get knocked down!

Or worse ... "Pint of lager and a packet of crisps - this job'll look good on your resumé"!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote blue manga:

---

and then double it

---

And expect to get knocked down!

Or worse ... "Pint of lager and a packet of crisps - this job'll look good on your resumé"!

---

you GOT a pint out of them?? You silver tongued devil! Hahahaha!

Eric

Thanks Eric and Blue Manga, yes there is a third party involved hence the 33% percent. They have stated that they only usually register the track once broadcast is decided. Always so many factors to consider when charging for your music at this rate I'll have spent longer on reading contracts and emailing than writing it. Thanks again for all your help guys!

--------------------
http://www.williammorrismusic.com

Quote blue manga:

---

your 50% (writers share) + 33% of publishing share .. doesn't sound bad at all to me.
Maybe this is because there is a 3rd party / middle man ?

---

33% of publishing. Not 33% of composition!! Even lowly EMI give 80/20 in YOUR favour so its 90% of composition when including writers share.

Quote ManFromGlass:

---

Anyway at some point monies will be collected from the internet and publishing will be worth something.
Eric

---

If we can get our damn useless PRO to lobby territory govs for a separate online definition then yes - this will happen. At the moment copyright money exploiters use the "it's a broadcast" "no i's a download" confusion to get in the way all the time!! There is potentially a business model in offering "protection" against backward calculated royalty by creating such a new definition AND getting writers/copyright owners paid again.... someone will do it and I bet it's Cutting Edge